Unfortunately for Fairey, his love of Obama was doomed to wither on the vine.

Adam B. Lerner of Politico:

‘Hope’ poster artist Shepard Fairey says Obama let him down

Shepard Fairey, the street artist behind the famous “Hope” poster that went viral during Barack Obama’s historic 2008 presidential run, said that the president has not lived up to his expectations.

In an interview with Esquire, Fairey acknowledged that “Obama has had a really tough time” but said he’s “not even close” to having lived up to the “Hope” poster created for him.

“I mean, drones and domestic spying are the last things I would have thought [he’d support],” Fairey added in the interview, posted Thursday.

He tempered his response saying that he’s met the president a few times and that he thinks he is a “quality human being,” adding that his presidential record has been largely dictated by things out of his control.

“I’m not giving him a pass for not being more courageous, but I do think the entire system needs an overhaul and taking money out of politics would be a really good first step,” Fairey said.

That’s funny. I remember when Democrats touted Obama’s fundraising prowess as proof of his ability to be president. Don’t worry, Shepard. I’m sure Hillary Clinton will get big money out of politics. (Pun intended.)

Here’s more from the Matt Patches Esquire piece about Mr. Fairey:

We also need a public that isn’t so uneducated and complacent. I hate to say Americans are ignorant and lazy, but a lot of them are ignorant and lazy. It’s just like what I was talking about with Rebel Music and art. When you live in a place that has a lot of good things that make life easier, it’s easier to take them for granted. But what frustrates me to no end are people who want to blame Obama or blame anything that is something that if they were actually doing anything as simple as voting, it might not be as bad as it is. There’s a lot of finger pointing and very little action and very little research into the dynamics that created the situation that they’re unhappy about.

Uneducated? Complacent? It almost sounds like Fairey is describing the millions of ‘low information’ voters who cast their ballots for Obama in 2008 and 2012.

Obama probably would have tried to get money out of politics but to be fair, he had other priorities.

Jon Gabriel of Ricochet:

Perhaps Obama was too busy raising $1.1 billion in 2012 to get around to taking money out of politics.

Featured image via Wikipedia.

The featured image is us at a really good falafel place near the beach.

I also saw Legal Insurrection favorite and sometimes contributor “Anne in Petah Tikva” and her husband.  Except that night, she was “Anne in Tel Aviv.”

It’s a tough life, but someone has to live it.

It would have been hard to accomplish everything we have in this past week without the help of personal guides.

I mentioned Hassan Khawaled yesterday, who took us to the Bedouin village of Khawaled.  Pictured here in front of an abandoned Carmelite Monastery just outside the village.

He also took us to Akko (Acre), the old fortress city, as well as through some Druze villages and to the Ahmadi Mosque in Haifa. The Ahmadis reject violent Jihad and any form of aggressive (as opposed to purely defensive) violence.

Udi Guberman was our guide along Lebanese border (pictured below at the Mount Adir memorial to Israeli soldiers killed in that border area during the 2006 Lebanon War.

[Udi Guberman, Travel Israel Tour Guide. Lebanon in distance.]

[Rosh Hanikra and border crossing]

[Rosh Hanikra Grottos]

[Megiddo, Israel]

[Megiddo, Israel]

When the media did its job back in April, the Clinton Foundation was forced to refile multiple tax returns after it was discovered that the Foundation failed to disclose donations from foreign governments. Still, gathering new information about the Foundation remains a monumental undertaking, even for mainstream media outlets.

The latest information to come out is the news that long time political confidant Sid Blumenthal was paid $10,000 per month by the Clinton Foundation while he was offering up unsolicited foreign policy advice to Hillary Clinton on Libya. From Politico:

Sidney Blumenthal, a longtime confidant of Bill and Hillary Clinton, earned about $10,000 a month as a full-time employee of the Clinton Foundation while he was providing unsolicited intelligence on Libya to then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, according to multiple sources familiar with the arrangement.

Blumenthal was added to the payroll of the Clintons’ global philanthropy in 2009 — not long after advising Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign — at the behest of former president Bill Clinton, for whom he had worked in the White House, say the sources.

While Blumenthal’s foundation job focused on highlighting the legacy of Clinton’s presidency, some officials at the charity questioned his value and grumbled that his hiring was a favor from the Clintons, according to people familiar with the foundation. They say that, during a 2013 reform push, Blumenthal was moved to a consulting contract that came with a similar pay rate but without benefits — an arrangement that endured until March.

If this was the only money Blumenthal was earning, it may not have been too eye-opening; but Blumenthal was also being paid by two organizations run by David Brock:

A Clinton loyalist who first earned the family’s trust as an aggressive combatant in the political battles of the 1990s, Blumenthal continues to work as a paid consultant to two groups supporting Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign — American Bridge and Media Matters — both of which are run by David Brock, a close ally of both Clinton and Blumenthal.

Whatever they say or print, know that American Bridge and Media Matters are in the bag for Hillary Clinton. Given this information, Hillary’s comments when confronted about taking advice from Blumenthal on Libya are baffling:

“When you’re in the public eye, when you’re in an official position, I think you do have to work to make sure you’re not caught in the bubble and you only hear from a certain small group of people, and I’m going to keep talking to my old friends, whoever they are.”

Not caught in the bubble? More like wrapped head to toe in bubble wrap. If Hillary would take some questions, we could ask why it seemed she was using a “charity” as a means of running a political operation designed to avoid the scrutiny of the media, Congressional investigators, and Freedom of Information Act requests.

Hillary’s relationship with Sid Blumenthal also extends to his son Max, a left wing anti-Israel agitator. Professor Jacobson wrote last week:

Max, the virulently anti-Israel activist, has been the subject of much controversy because of his penchant for vituperative and outlandish attacks on Israel, not the least of which was his call for Israeli Jews to be indigenized after the end of the Jewish state. See our Max Blumenthal Tag for some background.

It turns out that Max’s relationship with Hillary involved him supplying her with the now-debunked theory that an obscure YouTube video was largely responsible for the attacks on the consulate at Benghazi:

Left-wing writer Max Blumenthal helped inspire Hillary Clinton’s debunked talking point that an obscure YouTube movie called “Innocence of Muslims” was responsible for the deadly terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya in 2012.

The son of Clinton’s longtime political adviser and informal Libya consultant, Max Blumenthal pushed his conspiratorial theories onto the secretary of state in the hours after Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others were killed.

And how did Hillary obtain this information and begin to push it?

Now we know that Hillary became aware of the video on Sept. 12, the day after the attack, through her political adviser Sidney Blumenthal — Max Blumenthal’s father.

The events unfurled as follows:

“During the afternoon of September 11, 2012 new interim President of Libya Mohammed Yussef el Magariaf spoke in private with senior advisors, including the members of the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood, to discuss the attacks by demonstrators on U.S. missions in Tripoli and Benghazi,” Blumenthal reported to Clinton in a memo dated Sept. 12 at 12:50 a.m.

“During this session, a senior security officer told Magariaf that the attacks on that day were inspired by what many devout Libyans viewed as a sacrilegious internet video on the prophet Mohammed originating in America. The Libyan attacks were also inspired by and linked to an attack on the U.S. mission the same day,” Blumenthal said.

At 2:11 p.m. on Sept. 12, Hillary Clinton personally forwarded a link to an article about “Innocence of Muslims” to a colleague. That article was posted on MaxBlumenthal.com, and was written by Sidney Blumenthal’s son Max, who is now the senior writer for the far-left website AlterNet.

Hillary’s relationship with Sid and Max Blumenthal runs a whole lot deeper than just friendship. Sidney was passing along specious intel about Libya to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in defiance of President Obama’s orders that he not be involved with any foreign policy. Max’s conspiracy theory about an Internet video actually becaome administration talking points in the wake of the attacks on Benghazi.

The question is, how much will the media push Hillary Clinton on this? Time will tell.

Members of the Olympia Food Cooperative sued the Co Op’s board after board members decided to protest Israel’s alleged human rights violations via a Co Op-wide boycott of Israeli-made products. Plaintiffs claimed that the boycott violated the Co Op’s own boycott policy; the board, however, invoked Washington’s anti-SLAPP statute, claiming that the plaintiffs had filed a frivolous lawsuit as a way of suppressing public discussion. The plaintiff group was SLAPPed (I had to) with over $200,000 in fines and penalties, but appealed, claiming the SLAPP statute itself was unconstitutional.

Guess what—they won.

The case went all the way to the Washington Supreme Court, which held that Washington’s unique SLAPP language “creates a truncated adjudication of the merits of a plaintiff’s claim, including nonfrivolous factual issues, without a trial. Such a procedure invades the jury’s essential role of deciding debatable questions of fact.” This, they said, violates the Washington State Constitution.

This is more of a political victory than a legal victory (although we’ll take what we can get,) mostly because Washington’s anti-SLAPP statute is so unusual. As PopeHat explains:

I’ve lawsplained anti-SLAPP statutes before. In brief, an anti-SLAPP statute is a tool to address frivolous and vexatious lawsuits aimed at protected speech. Generally, they work like this: the defendant files a motion showing that it is being sued because of speech covered by the statute. If defendant does so, then the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that it has evidence supporting their claims. If the plaintiff succeeds, the suit survives; if the plaintiff fails, the court dismisses the case and (usually) awards defendant its attorney fees.
…
Most state statutes say the plaintiff has to show a “probability” of prevailing, or language to that effect. Almost universally, state courts have interpreted that to require the plaintiff only to produce sufficient evidence: that is, evidence that would be legally sufficient to support plaintiff’s claim if the jury accepted it as true. In those states, the judge considering an anti-SLAPP motion doesn’t weigh evidence — he or she doesn’t consider whose evidence is more persuasive. Instead, the judge treats it rather like a motion for summary judgment: has the plaintiff offered evidence that if believed satisfies all of the elements of the cause of action?

Washington’s anti-SLAPP statute is a little different. If the defendant carries its initial burden of showing that the lawsuit targets speech covered by the statute, it requires the plaintiff “to establish by clear and convincing evidence a probability of prevailing on the claim.” That plain language seems to require the plaintiff to show more than enough evidence, and requires the judge to weigh the evidence.

Legally, this is great for anti-BDS folks, but politically, it’s huge. The BDS movement is loud and proud, but it hasn’t been very successful when it comes to convincing co ops to boycott Israeli products. The Olympia Co op was their one victory, and now that victory is spiraling out of their hands. BDS activists are used to getting a long way on rhetoric alone; this case will cause serious repercussions when it comes to public image, and narrative momentum.

The battle isn’t over. This particular legal victory means that the plaintiffs will be allowed to continue with their lawsuit against the Co Op board. Expect the BDS activists to fight back. We’ll keep you posted on any new developments in this case as it moves through the courts.

You can read the decision from the Washington Supreme Court here.

UPDATE (WAJ): Stand With Us released a statement which reads, in part:

StandWithUs is thrilled to share the news that, in a major setback to the anti-Israel boycott, divestment, sanctions (BDS) campaign, this morning the Washington State Supreme Court held, by a vote of 9-0 that a lawsuit can proceed against Olympia Food Co-op board members, challenging their 2011 decision to boycott Israeli products.

StandWithUs helped the plaintiffs, five long-term dedicated members of the Olympia Food Co-op, find counsel to take legal action after they’d exhausted all other opportunities to get the Olympia Food Co-op board to follow its own boycott policy and bylaws and to reconsider the boycott decision.

When the trial court ruled against the plaintiffs, it assessed $232,000 in fees and penalties, an amount that would have been an overwhelming burden to the plaintiffs.

To appeal the case, the plaintiffs would have had to post a bond for more than that amount – over $400,000 – exremely difficult for the five middle class Olympia plaintiffs.

StandWithUs saw the situation the plaintiffs were in – long-time co-op members, supporters of Israel – who now faced devastating financial penalties simply because they stood up for fair treatment of Israel and demanded that their co-op board follow its own rules and bylaws.

StandWithUs stepped in and borrowed the money to post the bond for the full amount so that the plaintiffs could challenge the lower court decisions.

Now that the Washington State Supreme Court has completely rejected the Olympia Food Co-op board members’ argument and sent the case back to the trial court, StandWithUs is looking forward to the plaintiffs having their day in court – a real trial on the issues they first presented: The Olympia Food Co-op board’s violation of the co-op’s own rules and boycott policy when, without any public notice or debate, the co-op board voted to boycott Israeli products.

The NY Daily News had the same “story” yesterday:

The TPM article itself isn’t necessarily wrong. It’s fairly straightforward. But in order to support the headline, along, drawn out Hill battle was completely omitted.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) on Wednesday assured Texans that the state would receive federal relief following major flooding, even though the senator opposed federal funding following Hurricane Sandy.

“There are a series of federal statutory thresholds that have to be satisfied. Initially, it appears those thresholds are likely to be satisfied by the magnitude of the damage we’re seeing,” Cruz said while touring the flooding in Wimberley, Texas, according to Texas television station KSAT. “Democrats and Republicans in the congressional delegation will stand as one in support of the federal government meeting its statutory obligations to provide the relief to help the Texans who are hurting.”

TPM mentions Cruz voted against, “a federal aid package in the wake of Hurricane Sandy, and claimed that he opposed the bill due to spending in the bill unrelated to storm relief.” Also true.

But what was in the Hurricane Sandy Relief package that caused such a fuss?

President Obama didn’t bother to request federal aid until a month after Hurricane Sandy leveled parts of the northeast, so the matter wasn’t one being treated with urgency. According to Heritage, who dissected the $60 billion bill:

Most of the funding, however, goes well beyond assisting actual victims. Moreover, none of the spending is offset by reductions elsewhere. It will be allowed to exceed current spending limits by exploiting two exceptions built into the Budget Control Act (BCA)—one for additional “disaster” relief funds, and another for “emergency” spending.[1]

…Some of the items seem justified as mitigation of damage caused by Sandy. Much of the other funding is clearly not or is at least questionable.

…The legislation also contains $5.4 billion for repairing tunnels and other infrastructure damaged by the hurricane, another legitimate proposal.

Apart from that, much of the $60.4 billion in requested emergency spending is aimed at either mitigating future events and repairing or replacing federal assets.[5] Of Obama’s requested items, less than $23 billion of the $60.4 billion involves addressing emergency damages sustained by state and local governments, private-sector businesses, and individuals.

As a point of perspective, with the vast majority of homes and businesses privately insured, the total cost estimate for the entire private industry is just more than $20 billion.[6] Why is the federal spending proposal three times as large?

The Daily Signal wrote:

Not only does this act add to the deficit, but it is also reflects another symptom of government growth: over-federalization of natural disasters. In less than two years, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has issued a stunning 353 disaster declarations—despite the absence of major hurricanes or earthquakes (except Hurricanes Irene and Sandy). This high operational tempo keeps FEMA in a perpetual response mode, leaving little time and few resources to prepare to handle a real catastrophic disaster, such as Hurricane Sandy.

Senator Kelly Ayotte (R–NH) summed it up well: “[I]f a main goal of the Sandy relief legislation that passed the Senate was to quickly get resources into the hands of those who need it most, the final product fell short.”

Republicans in the Senate proposed amendments that would’ve specifically funded Hurricane Sandy relief efforts to a predictable end. But I’m sure that was left on TPM’s cutting room floor too.

So yes, it’s true Senator Cruz opposed the Hurricane Sandy relief package, but now you know why.

“TPM is a left-wing rag, of course they’re going to be misleading!”

I get it, I really do. Left uncontested, misinformation like this climbs its way up the news chain and into political lore. And we just can’t have that.

Follow Kemberlee Kaye on Twitter

The most recent example comes in the form of a Stand-Your-Ground piece written by a David Love, whose bio describes him as: “David A. Love is a writer based in Philadelphia. His work has appeared on CNN and been published by The Grio, The Progressive, and The Guardian.” Looks impressive, no?

Well, maybe the bio does. The piece on Stand-Your-Ground? Not so much.

I realize that David is almost certainly not responsible for the headline of the post, but let’s start there–after all, it’s how the piece is introduced to the reading public.

It’s also where the piece goes immediately off the rails:  “These are the States That Have ‘Stand Your Ground’ Laws.”  This point is then helpfully illustrated, literally, with a graphic image of the United States color coded to indicate which states qualify as “Stand-Your-Ground” states:  red-states are purportedly SYG, blue-states are purportedly non-SYG.  (That image is the featured pic at the top of this post. Interestingly, it was sourced in the Love’s piece as being from al Jazeera.com.  Huh.)

Before we dive into the errors of the illustrative map, however, let’s take a moment to refresh our recollection on what Stand-Your-Ground actually means, legally speaking: it simply means that the state does not impose a legal duty on an otherwise lawful defender to make use of a safe avenue of retreat before they can use force in defense of themselves or another.

Got it? Good.

Now let’s take a look at the 16 states indicated in the map as blue, and thus purportedly non-SYG that impose a legal duty retreat.

California? Nope, it’s a Stand-Your-Ground state, and has been since at least 1898.  Indeed, it’s arguably the most vigorous Stand-Your-Ground state in the country.  Not only may the defender stand their ground, they can actually pursue their attacker if necessary to their defense.  See jury instruction CALCRIM 505.

Colorado? Again, no, please see Cassels v. People, 92 P.3d 951 (CO Supreme Court 2004), there is no legal duty to retreat before acting in otherwise lawful self-defense.

Nevada? Nope, not a duty to retreat, according to § 200.120(2) which provides that there is no duty to retreat when one is otherwise lawfully defending themselves.

New Hampshire?  Definitely not a duty to retreat state, as § 627:4(III)(a) provides that a defender is not required to retreat if he is otherwise acting in lawful self-defense.

New Mexico? No, not a duty to retreat, in fact NM law explicitly provides that an otherwise lawful defender may literally “stand his ground.” See NMRA 14-5190.

North Carolina? Oofah, no, under § 14-51.3(a) NC explicitly does not impose a legal duty to retreat before using deadly force in otherwise lawful self-defense.

Vermont.  No, retreat is not required before using otherwise lawful deadly force.  See State v. Hatcher, 706 A.2d 429 (VT Supreme Court 1997).

Virginia? No, Virginia imposes no duty to retreat before one can act in self defense in committing a justifiable homicide.  See Foote v. Commonwealth, 396 S.E.2d 851 (VA Ct. App. 1990).

Thus fully half of the 16 states listed in Mr. Love’s article as being non-Stand-Your-Ground/duty-to-retreat states are nothing of the sort, but to the contrary are well-established Stand-Your-Ground states. (Incidentally, he also commits the reverse error by listing several “duty-to-retreat” states as “Stand-Your-Ground” states, but addressing those errors would take a whole other post.)

By the way, all of the above is readily available in my book, “The Law of Self Defense, 2nd Edition,” which Mr. Love could have downloaded (but obviously didn’t) from Amazon in Kindle format for a mere $9.99.  Heck, if he’d asked me I’d have sent him an autographed print review copy for free.

So, after this rather catastrophic factual failure on Mr. Love’s part you might imagine that the remainder of the article is equally rife with errors and/or irrelevancies.  And you would be correct.

For example, I note that Mr. Love cites the American Bar Association (ugh) as claiming that 33 states qualify as Stand-Your-Ground states, and his piece lists (mistakenly, half the time) 16 states that qualify as non-Stand-Your-Ground states.  Seems to me, there’s a state missing. Maths. Is. Hard.

Mr. Love states that Florida was the first state to adopt Stand-Your-Ground legislation, doing so in 2005. This may be technically true, but it is legally irrelevant. As already noted, California has been a Stand-Your-Ground state since at least 1898, which somewhat precedes 2005.  Of course, in the case of California as in many other states, Stand-Your-Ground was borne of longstanding case law, not statute.  Regardless, it’s good law, either way.

In the next sentence Mr. Love states that “Florida essentially immunizes a person from criminal prosecution or civil action, provided he proves the use of force was necessary to prevent death or serious harm.”  First, we can do away with the redundant word “essentially.’  Second, once again this is an irrelevancy. Self-defense immunity and Stand-Your-Ground are two entirely distinct legal concepts.  Some states have both self-defense immunity and Stand-Your-Ground (e.g, Florida), some have only one or the other (e.g., Oregon), some have neither (e.g., Massachusetts).

Two. Different. Things.

Mr. Love then begins to swerve into hilarity, stating first:  “For years, much of the United States has followed the “castle doctrine,” which basically holds that a person’s home is her castle, thereby giving that person a right to defend the home through the use of deadly force—and without legal consequences.”

First, every state, not merely “much of the United States,” recognizes the “Castle Doctrine.” (Yes, even Massachusetts.)

Second, of course the lawful use of deadly force, whether in defense of ones home or under any other circumstances, is without legal consequences.  That’s what lawful means.

But he continues: “The National Rifle Association and the American Legislative Exchange Council – a group of conservative lawmakers—began a push for legislation that ultimately would upend the castle doctrine.”

Again, this just highlights Mr. Love’s inability to understand what either Stand-Your-Ground or the “Castle Doctrine” actually mean.  The “Castle Doctrine,” most simply put, removes an otherwise existing legal duty to retreat before otherwise lawfully acting in self-defense when you are in your home.  “Stand-Your-Ground” removes this legal duty to retreat before otherwise lawfully acting in self-defense when you are anywhere you have a right to be.  Properly understood, “Stand-Your-Ground” expands the “Castle Doctrine,” it does not upend it.

This gem of Mr. Love’s was particularly enjoyable:

Stand Your Ground laws provide more latitude to invoke self-defense as a grounds for killing someone posing an imminent threat. Typically, such laws permit the use of deadly force outside the home against a perpetrator, regardless of whether the perpetrator is armed.

(emphasis added)

To my knowledge (and I’ve looked) there is no Stand-Your-Ground jurisprudence anywhere in the United States, or anywhere in the world for that matter, that has as an element whether one’s attacker is armed. An attacker that represents an imminent threat of death or grave bodily harm may be defended against, whether in a Stand-Your-Ground state or a duty-to-retreat state, regardless of whether he is armed with some kind of weapon, or is merely armed with his fists and feet.

Mr. Love closes with one of the most favored of “journalist” gimmicks, the loose use of “statistics”:

In states with Stand Your Ground laws, justifiable homicides have increased 85 percent, and the shooting of a black person by a white person is deemed justifiable 17 percent of the time. Meanwhile, the shooting of whites by blacks is found justifiable in only 1 percent of cases.

That first claim again reflects Mr. Love’s rather astonishing ignorance of the subject about which he has chosen to write.  In a piece whose tone is overwhelmingly critical of “Stand-Your-Ground” he cites as support of that anti-“Stand-Your-Ground” position a large increase in justifiable homicides (I set aside for this post the questionable accuracy of his cited statistics, and assume them to be correct for discussion purposes).

Breaking news: A large jump in justifiable homicide is a good thing, and the larger the better.  By definition, a justifiable homicide is one which is committed against a criminal aggressor by an innocent person who is defending themselves (or their spouse or child or parent) against death or grave bodily harm–rape, maiming, etc.  To put it another way, every justifiable homicide is a murder or rape or maiming that did not occur.

More of that, please, thank you.

As for the black versus white statistics of Mr. Loves closing paragraph, it is again irrelevant.

First, he does not provide comparable figures for non-Stand-Your-Ground states, so it’s impossible to know whether the disparity is possibly associated with Stand-Your-Ground or not.

Second, the source that Mr. Love cites for the disparity in black versus white statistics also helpfully provided its own map of the United States indicating which states are “Stand-Your-Ground” and which are duty-to-retreat.  Just for laughs, let’s see how the map from Mr. Love’s chosen source compares with the map he choose for his own piece. Here’s the map from Mr. Love’s piece, sourced from al Jazeera.com:

Here’s the map from Mr. Love’s cited source (a 2013 Christian Science Monitor article), in which the colored states are “Stand-Your-Ground”:

Ouch.  The Christian Science Monitor lists 26 duty-to-retreat states, as opposed to Mr. Love’s 16 (and similarly gets many of them wrong). Pretty sure a 3-year-old could pick out the variances between those two maps.  (It pays to read the sources you cite, Mr. Love.)

Perhaps Mr. Love is prepared to argue that during the 18 months between the publication of the Christian Science Monitor article and his own piece today an additional 10 duty-to-retreat states have “gone Stand-Your-Ground”?

No worries, he won’t. He can’t. It’s just wouldn’t be true. And it still wouldn’t explain away the half the states he himself wrongly cites as duty-to-retreat states.

OK, that’s enough fun & games with Mr. Love.  Back to billable hours.

–-Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

NEW! The Law of Self Defense proudly announces the launch of its online, on-demand state-specific Law of Self Defense Online Training.  These are interactive, online versions of the authoritative 5-hour-long state-specific Law of Self Defense Seminars that we give all over the country, but from the convenience of your laptop, tablet, or smartphone, and on your own schedule.  Click over for more information on our state-specific Law of Self Defense Online Training, and get access to the ~30 minute Section 1. Introduction for free.

Andrew F. Branca is an MA lawyer and the author of the seminal book “The Law of Self Defense, 2nd Edition,” available at the Law of Self Defense blog (autographed copies available) and Amazon.com (paperback and Kindle). He also holds Law of Self Defense Seminars around the country, and provides free online self-defense law video lectures at the Law of Self Defense Institute and podcasts through iTunes, Stitcher, and elsewhere.

Most of the people in the village have the village name as a last name, or a variant, such as the first Israeli Bedouin diplomat Ishmael Khaldi, who is from the village.

Khawaled is east of Haifa, in the Galilee region.

The Bedouin are Arab Muslims with a unique culture. Most Israeli Bedouins live in the south of the country in the Negev region, but there is a sizable presence in the Galilee.

The Israeli Bedouin are not obligated to serve in the Israeli Defense Forces, but many volunteer to do so. Bedouin have achieved great success in the IDF, and are particularly known as trackers at the borders.

Hassan explained to me how thankful he was to be a Bedouin in Israel, that it has opened up huge opportunities that would not be available to him elsewhere.

Many of the people in his village volunteer for the IDF, including career soldiers, or are in the police. Hassan himself served four years in the IDF, including in the Philadelphi corridor bordering Egypt in Gaza prior to Israel’s withdrawal.

Hassan explained that his mother’s house where he grew up, which really is more of a small shack and tent, was ordered demolished because it was not within the village planning limits. But his mother was being paid to move, and would be building a house next to Hassan’s own spacious and beautiful home.

Hassan invited us to a wonderful lunch at his house, which fortunately he served to us “American style” at a table instead of Bedouin style sitting on the floor.

While we were eating the head of the local regional council, who lives on a kibbutz, stopped by. Hassan explained that the regional council has been very helpful to Khawaled in resolving planning issues, and that the village had excellent relations with nearby kibbutzim.

Hassan explained that there was something of a building boom by the younger generation in Khawaled, and in his words, the mentality is to build the biggest house possible, and worry about the finishes later. Here is one example of an older style “house” next door to the large house built by the younger generation.

Khawaled has been highlighted by some groups as an example of discrimination against Arabs because of administrative orders to demolish houses not within the town planning zone. The ultra-left wing 972 Magazine wrote about Khawaled, Photo essay: Galilee Bedouin face house demolitions, featuring this photo:

I asked Hassan about it, and it turns out that the house in question is his mother’s house, the one for which the government is paying her to move. Hassan writes:

Yes yes this is my family
It’s my uncle Ali and his family
This article was written at the beginning
Now all have changed
And we have an agreement
It was written to have some time and to try to get more by Ali family ….
The first photo is my mother house …
Today all is fixed ……

So the 972 Mag article does not tell the whole story, which ended well.  That seems to be common in profiles of minority communities in Israel — the bad is emphasized, not the good.

There is no doubt that underfunding of minority communities, particularly “unrecognized villages,” has been a problem.  But at least in Khawaled, that seems to be improving.  A road construction problem in Khawaled also is in the process of being solved, according to Hassan, with the help of the regional council.

Hassan took us to the local elementary school, attended by his daughter. The school serves Khawaled and the nearby Bdeouin town Ras Ali. The school was newly built and very modern.  Hassan explained that this reflects growing government funding for the community, something missing in the past.  In another northern Bedouin village, improved government response to planning problems led to a 76% Likud (Netanyahu) vote.

We met with the principal, a Bedouin man who had spearheaded the project to get the regional council to allocate the funds and who helped oversee the construction.

We were allowed to photograph one of the classes in session. The kids were all smiles and thrilled that Americans were visiting the class.

Hassan made sure to point out that the bulletin board at the back of the class featured all three major religions in Israel. The children also learned Hebrew in school.

All in all, I got the sense that while there are problems in the northern Bedouin communities mostly relating to planning and construction issues, there also is tremendous pride in being Israeli and serving the country.

And there is no shortage of big houses being built.

UPDATE: Ishmael Khaldi, the first Israeli Bedouin diplomat, retweeted this post:

———————–

Prior posts from Israel Trip 2015:

• Israeli school bus bombing survivor reunites with nurse who saved him – 45 years later
• Meet an Israeli Doctor Saving Syrian Lives and Limbs
• Remembering Haifa Bus 37 Suicide Bombing

Waiting with baited breath for the Republican presidential candidate who can serve up the pro-abortion, anti-gun vote? Wait no more! Your endurance has proved fruitful. New York’s former Governor George Pataki announced his presidential candidacy today.

“My vision wasn’t a partisan vision, it was about people, about what we can accomplish together,” Pataki says in his first campaign video which was also released this morning. “If we are to flourish as a people, we have to fall in love with America again,” he concludes.

The video is 4 minutes long and has underlined words. That’s pretty much all I’ll say about it. But it’s here to sate your curiosity:

In his announcement, Pataki took a swipe at Hillary Clinton and railed against the IRS and Obamacare. He also dropped some gratitude in Spanish.

One has to wonder what possessed Pataki to join the packed primary. Despite the crowded heat, most candidate’s reasons for running are clear, and some are even delusional enough to believe they could be the next White House occupant. Hot Air‘s Jazz Shaw has a few theories:

Three theories for why he’d run. One: Boredom. He misses being in the political arena and wants to have some fun at the very margins of the big stage. In which case, okay, but wasn’t he bored in 2012 too? He would have gotten (somewhat) more attention back then as a centrist foil to Romney than he will once he’s lost in the crowd of more impressive candidates this year. Two: He feels obliged. New York has elected only three Republican governors over the last 90 years: Thomas Dewey, Nelson Rockefeller, and this guy. The first two ran for president and were credible candidates. Maybe Pataki’s talked himself into believing that even the modern GOP can’t resist taking a hard look at a centrist Republican who was capable of winning New York. Imagine his surprise when he finds out the truth. Three: He’s an establishment catspaw being nudged into the race to make Jeb Bush and Christie look more conservative by comparison. Surely, though, the donor class could have found someone with more currency than Pataki to fill that role if that’s the plan here. As it is, he’s unlikely to make the debates. How effective can a foil be if he barely registers in the public’s consciousness?

So, um, welcome to the race, Governor?

Follow Kemberlee Kaye on Twitter

Early in her candidacy, Professor Jacobson noted she was “rocking it” by taking the fight to Hillary Clinton. She continues to show the rest of the field how to target the elusive Democratic candidate.

For example, Clinton has been less than responsive when it comes to addressing the American press.

In contrast, Fiorina held a press conference…directly outside a Clinton event.

First the former Hewlett Packard chief executive popped up outside the Marriott hotel where Clinton was just about to kick off a campaign event, offering to take questions from the press since Clinton so often won’t.

Forty-five minutes later and six blocks down the road, there Fiorina was again, bragging to the South Carolina House Republican caucus about what she’d just done as they chewed on grilled chicken at a Hilton hotel luncheon.

“I’ve answered probably 420-plus questions on the record about everything, from, ‘Is a hot dog a sandwich?’ — I flubbed that one, I will tell you — to what I would do about ISIS and everything in between,” Fiorina said. “And Hillary Clinton has answered maybe 15 questions.”

Barely registering at the polls and less than three months away from the GOP’s first primary debate, Fiorina is making her one and only play: attacking the best-known presidential candidate of them all. And while it’s too soon to tell whether Fiorina’s tactics are paying off in the polls, Republican officials and activists in the early-primary states say what she’s doing is working.

She had a biting analysis of Clinton’s political record.

How can we trust Mrs. Clinton?” asked Fiorina, who in recent months has used her status as the only woman in the Republican field to attack the Democratic candidate.

“We now know that her family foundation has had to refile five years’ worth of returns because it failed to disclose donations from foreign governments. We know that she only had one email in her server, that she put a server in her basement, that it was convenient not to rely on federal government emails. We know that Benghazi was a terrorist attack despite the fact that she told us it was a protest gone bad,” added Fiorina during the 11-minute news conference.

An NBC video captures the conference:

Conservative talk show host Tammy Bruce had a lengthy interview with Fiorina, in which she gave impressively dynamic and detailed-filled responses to Bruce’s policy questions. Addressing the matter of polls, Fiorina pointed out that it is too early for the numbers to have any significant meaning.

Given that the poll numbers will ultimately have bearing on who Fox News will permit in its Republican presidential debate, I was impressed that Fiorina indicated she will do what it takes to be on that stage in August.

Compare this reply to that of the GOP’s newest candidate.

The Fox News presidential debate qualification rules have former Senator Rick Santorum crying foul.

….”I’m someone who believes that we should have an inclusive process,” Mr Santorum told reporters after his speech at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference in Oklahoma City. “If you’re a United States senator, if you’re a governor, if you’re a woman who ran a Fortune 500 company and you’re running a legitimate campaign for president, then you should have the right to be on stage with everyone else.”

I have vowed to keep an open mind during the candidate selection process. However, at this point, I hope Fiorina makes it to the first debate. She has the right campaign priorities, as far as I’m concerned.

As usual, it’s all about Obama.

Amber Phillips of the Washington Post:

President Obama’s legacy is increasingly in legal jeopardy

President Obama’s second-term agenda, it seems, is in the hands of the courts.

Same-sex marriage. Obamacare. Climate change. And now immigration. And in many cases, there is significant doubt about whether his signature initiatives will stand legal scrutiny.

The latest blow to Obama’s second-term plans came Tuesday when a federal appeals court in New Orleans denied the administration’s request to move forward with implementing his expanded executive action on immigration to defer deportation for millions of undocumented immigrants.

That’s funny. He didn’t run on gay marriage. In fact, Obama said in a 2008 interview with pastor Rick Warren that he believed marriage was between a man and a woman.

He also said that we could keep our healthcare plans and doctors if we liked them.

Maybe the American people now know he was lying, and maybe his legacy doesn’t matter.

Maybe this is all about the presidential library.

John Podhoretz of the New York Post might be onto to something here:

ISIS rises, the economy falters, and Obama’s legacy falls apart

Deep into the seventh year of his tenure, Barack Obama is thinking about his post-presidential legacy. We know this because he’s telling us so.

In an interview this week with The Atlantic about the potential deal with Iran regarding its nuclear program, the president sought to use the fact of his relative youth and his consciousness about how history might judge him to his advantage: “Look, 20 years from now, I’m still going to be around, God willing. If Iran has a nuclear weapon, it’s my name on this. I think it’s fair to say that in addition to our profound national-security interests, I have a personal interest in locking this down.”

In one sense, this is what we want presidents to worry about. We want them to be restrained by the cautionary examples provided by history and by the fact that history will judge them.

Read it all here.

Forgive me if I’m more concerned about America’s legacy than Obama’s.

Good thing I don’t work for Politico.

Making his announcement to a sizable crowd of enthusiastic supporters, Santorum made a tall order. “I’ll offer a bold vision for America, the one that’s clear and conservative, that has plans for reform and that has a proven track record.”

His multi-faceted platform included “scrapping the corrupt federal tax code and the IRS that goes with it.” In exchange for the current tax code, Santorum proposed implementing a flat tax. Reviving industry, shrinking government, reducing spending, and revoking every executive order and regulation that “cost American jobs” were also priorities outlined by Pennsylvania’s former Senator.

“From day one, we will work to bring back America and put Americans back to work,” Santorum promised. In a populist appeal, Santorum lumped Hillary Clinton and Big Business into one category claiming, “their priority is profits and power, my priority is you, the American worker.”

“It’s time we have a president who sees the struggle of working families in America not as an opportunity to divide us along race or class, but as a chance to unite us,” Santorum said, referring to American families as “the first economy.”

While Santorum will be one of many in a tightly packed Republican primary, he has one presidential run under his belt. Managing to come in second place in the 2012 primary and winning a total of eleven states, does he have what it takes to draw that kind of attention in the 2016 field?

Real Clear Politics has Santorum polling 10th in the prospective GOP primary field. Unlike some of those polling ahead of him, Santorum has the advantage of presidential campaign experience and name recognition. Republican voters have seen him on the national stage, know he’s ardently pro-life, watched the former Senator debate the likes of Gingrich and Ron Paul, and either love or hate his preferred uniform, the sweater vest.

Even though Santorum hasn’t held an elected office in several years, he brings with him a deep resume of Republican experience. Fox News recounts:

Santorum claims his experience could pay dividends the second time around. Most of the GOP’s recent presidential nominees, Mitt Romney and President Ronald Reagan among them, needed more than one campaign to find success in the nomination race.

“This is a long process,” Santorum told reporters recently. “One of the things that I feel very comfortable with — I’ve been through this process before.” He said it’s a “completely wide open race.”

Santorum served in the Senate from 1995 to 2007.

He began his political career in 1990 as a long-shot candidate for a House seat. In that race, he knocked seven-term Democratic incumbent Doug Walgren out of office. Santorum would go on to become part of the “Gang of Seven” in Congress made up of a new breed of GOP lawmakers. The group, which included now-House Speaker John Boehner, made headlines by going after House Democrats as well as focusing on the House banking scandal.

Santorum won election to the U.S. Senate in 1994. He was 36.

Six years later, he won re-election to a second term and would go on to chair the Senate Republican Conference — the third highest-ranking party leadership position in the Senate.

Santorum is the first “Rick” to enter the race. Former Governor of Texas Rick Perry is scheduled to announce his candidacy June 4.

Follow Kemberlee Kaye on Twitter

According to Roll Call’s Hannah Hess, Chairwoman of the House Administration Committee, Rep. Candice S. Miller, R-Mich., the Capitol could really use a few giant surveillance blimps.

In April, intrepid Florida mailman Douglas Hughes successfully landed a gyrocopter on the Capitol’s West Front Lawn. Hughes was gyrocopting around D.C. in protest of the campaign finance system. Authorities were unaware of the gyrocopter’s approach until Park Police spotted the UFO hovering over the Lincoln Memorial about 25 minutes before Hughes landed on the Capitol’s lawn.

Hughes’ gyrocopter appeared on the FAA’s radar as a simple dot. “All available information about the slow moving, irregular symbol made it indistinguishable from other non-aircraft radar tracks,” FAA Administrator Michael P. Huerta testified. On the raw-air traffic radar feed, the gyrocopter looked like a flock of birds, weather event, kites or a balloon.

Of course every single action requires a disproportionate government reaction so clearly, the only way to stop unsolicited gyrocopters is to employ a bevy of giant blimps to provide aerial surveillance of the Capitol grounds…

Hess reports Rep. Miller visited, “U.S. Customs and Border Patrol ground stations along the Southern border in January and was amazed at the clarity of the Tethered Aerostat Radar System, or TARS. She is suggesting the “sophisticated technology” might suit the Capitol.”

Imagine the D.C. skyline, littered with giant blimps suspended in air around 10,000 feet. “Deployed by federal law enforcement, the aerostats contain 2,000-pound radars in their bellies, capable of detecting aircraft at a range of 200 miles,” writes Hess.

“They’re going to be using drones to deliver your taco here pretty soon,” Miller said during a May 20 hearing featuring Capitol Police Chief Kim C. Dine. She suggested the department might be able to get “surplus stuff” from the Department of Defense. “I mean, this is what’s coming, so how can you be able to assess using technology that’s available, as quickly as you can?”

As a side note, can we fast forward to the part where I can order up a drone delivered taco? I eagerly welcome this technological advance.

Other lawmakers take the suggestion of jumbo aeronautic balloons seriously, pointing to Hughes’ flight as justification for investing more money into surveillance of Washington’s skies.

Both Republicans and Democrats have been “very clear” to federal law enforcement authorities that they want “anybody who has anything to do with airspace to avail themselves to the most sophisticated technology,” said Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, D-Md., the ranking member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

“We’re going to hold their feet to the fire. I think they are doing the best they can, but I think what this has shown is it shows you where you’re vulnerable,” Cummings continued. “There are always copycats.”

Hughes will be back in D.C. court on June 22, facing two felony charges and four misdemeanors. He told reporters last week he believes if his flight exposed any security risks, they have been fixed.

…“Drones are just an exploding technology,” she [Rep. Miller] said in a follow-up interview, citing Amazon’s proposed delivery service, as well as agricultural drones. “You’re not putting the toothpaste back in the tube — it’s coming. So, for all the good things that they can do, there’s also a security risk.”

Reportedly, Capitol Police are checking out the airborne technology that’s already in use near Baltimore.

Giant surveillance blimps. Who would’ve thought it would come to this?

Follow Kemberlee Kaye on Twitter

And I’m not alone.  Rand has been trying to affirm his strength on national security precisely because there are a lot GOP primary voters who do not share his isolationist leanings.  As Kemberlee noted in September of last year, Rand’s “I’m neither an isolationist nor an interventionist” may not have appeal . . .  to either side.

His rhetoric has changed rather dramatically from last fall, however.  Now he’s going so far as to argue that Republican hawks “created” ISIS.  This statement is getting a lot of attention, and for good reason: it’s an amazing and strange thing to say.  Watch:

Team Hillary is probably already scrambling to get this into a campaign ad.  Bernie Sanders may also be wise to spend some of his significantly more limited campaign cash on ads showcasing this statement.

Rand will be walking this back for the next several days, but what it shows is not only a worldview that is unlikely to win him many GOP primary votes but also the sort of adolescent petulance we’ve seen in him before.

As soon as Joe Scarborough mentions Lindesy Graham’s presumed argument that “ISIS exists because of people like Rand Paul,” Rand does what any good high school debate team captain would do: he flips the statement to argue that ISIS exists because of people like Lindsey Graham.  It’s a rhetorical device, not a thoughtful argument.

It’s also unattractive and unpresidential.  As Rand is likely learning, “uh uh you are!” is not a good way to approach important questions about foreign policy, national security, or America’s role in the world.

…too bad that interest manifested in the form of an investigation, accusations, and mass arrests. C’est la vie.

Today at dawn, seven of FIFA’s (the Fédération Internationale de Football Association, or the governing body of worldwide soccer) most powerful executive were dragged out of their Zurich hotel rooms and arrested under suspicion of corruption. If the results of a long-term investigation by the FBI pan out, they could be facing up to 20 years in prison.

The Daily Beast explains:

The U.S. authorities probed what officials described as a 24-year scheme by senior executives to enrich themselves through the corruption of international soccer. Indictments on 47 counts against 14 people, including racketeering, wire fraud, and money laundering, were unsealed in federal court. The indictment details a $10 million payment to induce one executive to vote for the 2010 World Cup to be hosted in South Africa. There are also allegations that bribes were paid to help Sepp Blatter secure the FIFA presidency in 2011.

“The indictment alleges corruption that is rampant, systemic, and deep-rooted both abroad and here in the United States,” Attorney General Loretta Lynch said Wednesday in Brooklyn. “Today’s action makes clear that this Department of Justice intends to end any such corrupt practices, to root out misconduct, and to bring wrongdoers to justice—and we look forward to continuing to work with other countries in this effort.”

So much for the love of the game, right?

The U.S. will ask Switzerland to extradite the men; Switzerland, however, has jumped into the investigation itself by seizing Swiss bank accounts and documents that could show officials were unjustly enriched following the scandalous decision to award World Cup hosting privileges to Russia and Qatar. Both countries have terrible human rights records, and officials expect that during the investigation member nations will call on FIFA to reopen discussions about more appropriate venues.

So, we have a mess on our hands, of the international variety—but it gets even better!

Guess which international organization with a rotten reputation regarding ethics, human rights, and overall honesty is also a Clinton Foundation donor!?

The Clinton Foundation has received between $50,000 and $100,000 from FIFA, and has also partnered with the organization on several occasions—but wait, there’s more!

Involvement with the embattled body extends beyond the foundation to Bill Clinton himself. The former president was an honorary chairman of the bid committee put together to promote the United States as a possible host nation for the 2018 or 2022 World Cup.

When the U.S. lost the 2022 bid to Qatar, Clinton was rumored to be so upset he shattered a mirror.

But apparently Qatar tried to make it up to him.

The Qatar 2022 Supreme Committee, partnering with the State of Qatar, “committed to utilizing its research and development for sustainable infrastructure at the 2022 FIFA World Cup to improve food security in Qatar, the Middle East, and other arid and water-stressed regions throughout the world,” according to the Clinton Foundation website.

The cost of the two-year project is not listed on the Clinton Foundation website, but the Qatar 2022 committee gave the foundation between $250,000 and $500,000 in 2014 and the State of Qatar gave between $1 million and $5 million in previous, unspecified years.

It just keeps getting better, doesn’t it?

That being said, at some point, you have to turn off the spigot and get serious about just how many rules and regulations the federal government should be allowed to throw at the American people.

Earlier this year the Mercatus Center, a free-market economic think tank at George Mason University, created an infographic to illustrate just how ridiculous the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) has become—and why they had to create a computer program just to read all of it. Take a look:

5000 hours of reading; 25 miles of paper; it’s longer than Game of Thrones, which should probably be against the law. That’s why Mercatus invented “RegData,” a computer program that “reads” and parses out the literal library of federal regulations. Mercatus explains how this program has helped their scholars wrap their brains around a body of law that is, for all practical purposes, impossible to actually read and understand:

RegData’s programs, on the other hand, have not only read the 2012 CFR, but also the entire CFR published in each year from 1997 through 2012. This allows us to see how regulation has changed over time—which agencies have grown or shrunk, which industries are targeted more or less, and how major acts of Congress affect the rate of producing regulations. Before RegData’s creation, any attempts to answer these questions were simply . . . fantasy.

This is huge. Reading and understanding is the first step to educating and advocating for change—but what rules can we do without?

Like it or not, the federal government exists for a reason, and in order to do its job, needs a guidebook. Some members of Congress, however, are taking the opportunity to fire away at old, outdated, and unnecessary regulations—even if it’s unlikely the White House and the agencies will be willing to play ball:

Enter Congress, where the general of the war on regulation is Sen. Angus King, (I-ME), who’s pessimistic that the solution will come from the White House and the agencies. “You’re asking the people who are doing the regulating to regulate themselves,” he said, “and I’m not sure that’s going to produce results.”

Now King is trying to rally support for Congress to tackle it. In March, King and Senator Roy Blount (R-MO) reintroduced legislation that would create an independent commission charged with weeding out unnecessary regulations. The Regulatory Improvement Act, as it’s called, is similar to steps King took as governor of Maine in the 1990s to streamline the regulatory process. The law would create a Regulatory Improvement Commission, which would provide Congress with a list of regulations to cut, similar to the way the Base Closure and Realignment Commission is used to identify military installations to eliminate.

The Regulatory Improvement Act did not make it past subcommittee hearings when King first introduced it in 2013, but King is optimistic that it will fare better this time around. He and Blount have added two new cosponsors this time around, Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) and Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS).

He says the leadership of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee has expressed “openness” to considering the issue, and there’s a companion bill circulating in the House that has the support of 14 members—7 Democrats and 7 Republicans.

King, who caucuses with the Democrats, is sensitive to the ideological dimensions of regulatory reform. “Somebody can fly under the flag of regulation reform when what they really want to do is wipe out an agency,” he says.

But what rules can we really do without? Separating truly ineffective regulations from ones that are just ideologically unsavory is the hard part. Republicans and Democrats each have their own ideas about what makes a bad regulation. Beyond the politics of specific regulations, the size of the federal code is an obstacle unto itself.

It’s a problem that now has a solution. With programs like RegData, we can answer the “which regulations really need to go” conundrum with actual data. We can create timelines to show voters and their representatives how agencies have changed, bloated, and become waterlogged over time.

Regulations may come along with fiscal incentives, but I’d be willing to bet that slapping a few examples of decades of government waste into a slick viral graphic could start to create a groundswell of electoral incentive to be a lot more discriminating when it comes to letting hyperregulation at the agencies slide.

It’s groundbreaking work, and it’s something that even activists can use to educate voters about why free-market, small government policies are better for the country.

Based on my experiences with a vibrant California Tea Party group, I would argue that the conservative citizen movement transmuted. The form changed, based on the needs and political situation of its many members.

Yet, several people who have been active in the movement agree that the “culture wars” have played a role in the current status of the Tea Party.

Shane Atwell, who writes often about Tea Party-related matters for the San Diego Local Order of Bloggers, makes an interesting connection between social conservatism and the “fading” Tea Party.

I think a lot of the fire left the Tea Party when it got absorbed by the conventional conflict between lefties and conservatives on social issues. It started out as being about limited government (abolishing the federal reserve, getting the government out of housing, reducing taxes, reducing regulations, abolishing Obamacare) and morphed into being about maintaining or expanding government (border fences and marriage restrictions). The leftist media focused on these last and might have known that it would help diffuse the Tea Party.

We should have agreed from the beginning to disagree about border, abortion and marriage issues. In fact we should have left the entire social conservative agenda at the door and focused on limited government. And fought hard against anyone that wanted to bring those issues in, however innocently. We should have acknowledged openly that we come from very different philosophic backgrounds (libertarian, Objectivist, social conservative, fiscal conservative, classical liberal, even civil libertarian) but we’re joining together to reign in government power. Each of us could separately be involved in other activism. I could support gay marriage and you could oppose it. But as long as we had our “tea party” hats on, we would remain silent about those other issues or at least openly acknowledge that our opinion was outside the “tea party” mandate/coalition. I think if that had happened there’ld be more fire left.

B-Daddy, author of The Liberator Today blog and San Diego area citizen activist, feels that the Tea Party was adversely impacted by the “culture wars” in a very direct way.

…The left successfully portrayed the movement as racist and bigoted; and we lacked a counter-narrative. We responded in a linear and logically straightforward manner that was not convincing….

….The antidote is to continue to fight on all fronts, but smarter. Yes, we need excellent policy prescriptions to show our mettle and fitness for governance. But there is a crying need for a cultural counter-narrative. So I frame my opposition to gay marriage on free speech grounds. Call yourself anti-racist and I call you anti-white. Attack Christians for their faith? I’ll ask why you exempt Muslims. Assert feminist privilege? I’ll show that to be racist also. Tell me my opposition to Obamacare is racist and I will ask how you’re paying for premium hikes. The tactics of Andrew Breitbart are needed now more than ever, because I don’t think that the American people are as “progressive” as the polls might indicate. Establish control of the frame of reference and establish the terms of the debate.

But we all agree that the Tea Party is far from dead. In fact, one liberal hysterically wrote that the Tea Party has just taken over the Republican Party….which is shocking news to us citizen activists. Of course, since the author also blamed the Tea Party for the Gabby Giffords shooting, his assertion is obviously suspect.

Dawn Wildman, coordinator for the California Tea Party, concurs with my feelings that our movement hasn’t really faded as much as transformed.

No we are not dead! We are stopping bad policy daily. Never underestimate us! After all, we are still talking about the Tea Party and we are about 6.5 yrs old now. My father always said, ‘Learn the rules; learn them well so you can learn to operate around them,’ and that is what we are doing!

Between promoting legislation, petitioning for propositions, organizing debates between candidates, and being a favorite IRS target...well, all I can say is that we are still alive and kicking after all these years!

Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton’s State Department

In the years before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia contributed at least $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, the philanthropic enterprise she has overseen with her husband, former president Bill Clinton. Just two months before the deal was finalized, Boeing — the defense contractor that manufactures one of the fighter jets the Saudis were especially keen to acquire, the F-15 — contributed $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to a company press release.

The Saudi deal was one of dozens of arms sales approved by Hillary Clinton’s State Department that placed weapons in the hands of governments that had also donated money to the Clinton family philanthropic empire, an International Business Times investigation has found.

Under Clinton’s leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation, according to an IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data. That figure — derived from the three full fiscal years of Clinton’s term as Secretary of State (from October 2010 to September 2012) — represented nearly double the value of American arms sales made to the those countries and approved by the State Department during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term.

The Clinton Foundation is already under fire for undisclosed donations and has already cast a shadow on Hillary’s presidential campaign. Her refusal to face the press has only raised more questions.

Tim Devaney of The Hill has more:

Hillary scrutinized for arms sales at State

The State Department under Hillary Clinton authorized arms sales to countries that had donated millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation, according to a new report.

State approved $165 billion worth of weapons sales to 20 foreign governments during Clinton’s tenure, the International Business Times reports. Among the countries involved in the sales were Algeria, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

The Clinton Foundation received between $54 million and $141 million in donations from the foreign governments and defense contractors involved in those sales, the report says.
Certain defense contractors also paid her husband, former President Bill Clinton, for speaking engagements during that time.

It’s getting to the point where these issues will be impossible for the mainstream media and voters to ignore.

Speaking to conservative radio host Laura Ingraham, Walker said if he does jump in the 2016 race, “I don’t think there’s a state out there we wouldn’t play in.”

“Other than, maybe, Florida, where Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio are … in some of the polls, essentially tied,” he said, naming the former governor and current senator who are headed down a collision course in their home state’s primary this cycle.

You can listen to the audio here:

Walker may have a point, but it seems kind of odd that he would announce something like this with nearly eight months before the first primary in 2016. In addition, the schedule is different this time around:

Florida played a pivotal role in the 2012 GOP nominating contest, giving Mitt Romney a boost that solidified his frontrunner status in the nominating fight. The state’s 2016 primary is scheduled for much later, in mid-March, the earliest date allowed by the Republican National Committee for states to allocate its delegates on a winner-take-all basis.

In 2012 the primary was on January 31. This year it is on March 15. Primaries often become a matter of momentum and Walker can’t say for sure Jeb or Rubio will still be in the race by March 15, 2016.

Why concede anything at this point? Voters are drawn to candidates who project confidence (not arrogance) and this makes it look like Walker doesn’t want to waste time. Also, knowing how the press reacts, Walker will now have to face questions about this.

In addition, what will Florida voters think? They’re fickle, and Walker’s comments could be construed as, “I’m not going to bother.”

Time will tell. That said, the race is still at a very early stage. Walker should concern himself more with the short term and worry about Florida when he sees what the field looks like at the end of January.

While our discovery of a memorial to the victims of the Haifa Bus 37 suicide bombing and our visit to Ziv Hospital in Safed, and its Syrian patients, were unexpected, our visit to the Moshav was even more emotional and full of surprises – Revenge and Reunion.

We met with Shimon Biton, the Secretary of the Moshav.  (Our excellent guide, Udi Guberman, provided translation, as Shimon does not speak English.)

[Shimon Biton, Moshav Avivim, Israel]

There currently are 120 families in the Moshav, 480 people. There are plans to expand to add at least another 50 families, and the demand outpaces available spots.

Moshav Avivim sits along the Lebanese border, just south of Bint Jbeil and Maroun Al-Ras.

When I say right along the border, I mean right along the border:

As we drove to Moshav Avivim, the border fence was just off the road. In this image, the fence along the road is not the border fence – there is another fence just beyond with electronic sensors and between the two a groomed dirt road to detect footprints of intruders.

Moshav Avivim was founded in 1958 by Polish Holocaust survivors who left after just a couple of years. From 1960-1963 it was an army base, and in 1963 50 Jewish immigrant families from Morocco were settled there by the government.  Shimon Biton’s family was one of those families — He told us that he was conceived in Morocco but born in Israel, the first baby born at Moshav Avivim.

Biton is a common surname at Moshav Avivim.

It was a hard life for the new Moroccan immigrants.  They were given little by the government, and forced to fend for themselves, according to Biton. Most of the work prior to 1970 was for the Jewish National Fund.

May 22, 1970 – The School Bus Attack

Moshav Avivim and another community down the road split the school grades because neither itself had enough few children to justify a school with all grades.  So the older children from the other community would come by bus to Moshav Avivim, and the bus would then bring the younger children from Moshav Avivim to the other community.

That was what happened on May 22, 1970.  The older children got off the bus at Moshav Avivim, and the younger children from Moshav Avivim boarded the bus.

Shimon Biton, then six and one-half years old, boarded the bus accompanied by his father, Machluf Biton, who was the parent designated to ride the bus that day.  Several of Shimon’s cousins also were on the bus.  The bus clearly was a school bus, and followed the same routine every day.

A few kilometers after the bus left Moshav Avivim, it was attacked with bazooka fire from three terrorist belonging to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command, who infiltrated from Lebanon.

Here is what the inside of the bus looked like:

Shimon’s father was killed in the attack, but Shimon initially was not severely injured since he was at the back.  As he ran forward to check on his father, Shimon was shot several time by one of the terrorists. (He offered to show us the wounds, but we declined.)

Medics and the army quickly descended on the scene.  Here is a photo of Shimon being carried away on a stretcher, cared for by a nurse from a neighboring kibbutz.  Shimon keeps the photo on his phone, and provided it to me:

Shimon would spend the next year at Rambam Hospital in Haifa. It was several months before he learned his father had been killed, along with three first cousins, two boys and a girl on his father’s side.

Here is a list of the 12 dead:

Ester Avikezer (23), Yehuda Ohayon (10), Yafa Batito (8), Shimon Azran (35), Mimon Biton (7), Haviva Biton (7), Chana Biton (8), Shimon Biton (9), Shulamit Biton (9), Machluf Biton (28), Aliza Peretz (14), Rami Yarkoni (29).

There would be a 13th to die from the attack, but not for 43 years, as Yeshiva World reported on December 30, 2013, 13th Victim of the Terror Attack on School Bus from Moshav Avivim 43 Years Ago:

43 years after nine of her classmates and three adults were murdered en route to school in the Upper Galil, Leah Revivo HY”D (52) died last week from an infection from a fragment of shrapnel lodged in her brain in the 1970 attack….

Leah was first thought to be among the dead and they only realized sometime later that she was alive, albeit gravely injured. She was transported to Rambam Medical Center in Haifa. Family members explain she carried the shrapnel scars on her body her entire life, along with the fragments that remained lodged in her brain. She overcame the odds and fought the ominous predictions of doctors by rehabilitating herself, getting married and having children and a life.

Leah’s life took a turn for the worse two years ago when one of the pieces of shrapnel in her brain became infected. She began having seizures. On erev Rosh Hashanah 5774 she had a major seizure event and she sustained severe neurological damage. About two months ago she was listed “in a vegetative state” and she eventually died of infection from the shrapnel in her head.

The Aftermath – Surviving and Thriving

According to Shimon, one of the terrorists was killed by the army as they fled. A second one would participate in another attack on Kibbutz Misgav Am and be captured, only to be released decades later as part of a prisoner exchange for the bodies of three Israeli soldiers. [Note, I think he was referring to the 2004 exchange of several hundred prisoners for the bodies and Israeli citizen Elhanan Tannenbaum.] Shimon says he petitioned the Israeli Supreme Court to prevent the release, unsuccessfully. The third terrorist escaped and has not been found.

Shimon and the rest of his extended family stayed on the Moshav. Not a single Moshav family left because of the attack. His mother, who was 23 at the time of the attack, would not remarry for 12 years.

Shimon initially was turned down for army service due to his injuries, but his mother badgered the IDF until they let him in. He would serve in the Lebanon War in 1982, going all the way to Beirut, and would later serve delivering water to Lebanese villages prior to Israel’s departure from Lebanon.

Shimon expressed pride that his children not only were successful, but served in the IDF. He invited us into his lovely home, where we met his wife.

Trouble Never Far Away

While there have been no more attacks on Moshav Avivim, there has been trouble along the fence.

In 2006, fighting with Hezbollah took place in the area, resulting in a partial evacuation of the Moshav:

IDF soldiers were killed and nine wounded in a clash with Hizbullah forces on the Lebanese side of the border.

The forces had been sent in to destroy a Hizbullah outpost directly opposite the moshav. The outpost was originally built by the IDF and abandoned intact after prime minister Ehud Barak ordered a hasty withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000….

Four-hundred people live in Avivim. About half of them – including almost all of the women, children and elderly people with health problems – have been evacuated from the moshav, according to Shimon Biton, head of the Avivim residents’ committee and a member of the emergency team. The able-bodied men have stayed behind to protect their homes and look after their poultry.

Biton is tough and determined. He lost his father in 1970, when Palestinian terrorists belonging to the Syrian-sponsored Saeka organization fired two bazooka shells at a school bus, killing 12 Avivim residents, most of them children, and wounding about 25. “We ask the government to support the army and give it another month to do the job,” said Biton. “We are prepared to sit in shelters all that time.”

In 2011, attempts to breach the fence by protesters resulted in Deadly clashes on Israel’s borders with Syria, Lebanon (Ynet, May 15, 2011)

Meanwhile, thousands of Lebanese citizens gathered at the Maroun al-Ras boardwalk near Moshav Avivim to protest on “Nakba Day.” Lebanese Army forces pushed them away from the border by firing warning shots in the air.

According to later reports, Israeli forces also fired in the air to repel Palestinians demonstrating at the border, wounding dozens. At least 10 people were reportedly killed and more than 100 were hurt at the site.

IDF officials said the casualties were likely hit by Lebanese forces, who directed heavy fire at the protestors….

IDF Northern Command Chief Gadi Eisenkot declared a northern road connecting various area communities as a restricted military zone.

Moshav Avivim Council Chairman Shimon Biton told Ynet: “For more than four decades now I’ve seen the Lebanese protest in Maroun al-Ras . They’ve never gotten close to the border fence. They’re not going to do it today either. I suggest that Arab governments concentrate on taking care of their own people rather than thinkig of ways to hurt us.”

In February 2015, there was another incident near the fence involving Hezbollah supporters, but there were no casualties.

Revenge and Reunion

What were his feelings over the years? Shimon felt that he had exacted revenge, but not in the way you might think.

Revenge, according to Shimon, came from the fact that “we are still here and building for another 70 families.”

That could be the end of the story, a story of triumph over evil at great cost, of perseverance, of building while others sought to tear down.

But there was a twist.

Remember that nurse in the photo above? Shimon had no contact with her for 45 years. He was in shock at the time, and wouldn’t have remembered what she looked like, much less her name.

Ten days before we met him, Shimon met that nurse for the first time since that fateful day 45 years earlier, at a reunion with several other survivors.

Here is the photo Shimon shared with me from his phone, next to the nurse, Adina: